Is a magazine body a magazine?

Is a spring a magazine?

Is a floor plate or follower a magazine?

 

If one had a bag of parts that could be turned into a high cap magazine is it still a high cap magazine? What if all these parts are seperate in different rooms or even buildings?

 

 

When is a magazine no longer a magazine?

a magazine is the sum of its parts assembled or disassembled (in NJ)

I'm going to agree with vlad on this one. If you have all the parts for a mag, you have the mag...

 

Now, if a part is ommited or destroyed you should be to go. So everything but a spring should be OK. Or everything with a spring, but the spring is cut up.

just to add...

nj does define high cap magazine..

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/29389-nj-law-summary-read-first-nj-gun-law-faqs/

 

"Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container, which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly

therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm. A large capacity ammunition magazine that has been permanently altered so that it is not capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition will cease to be defined as a "large capacity ammunition magazine." An ammunition magazine, which has been temporarily blocked or modified from holding more than 15 rounds, as by a piece of wood or a pin, is still considered to be a "large capacity ammunition magazine."

hence why no "parts kit" in nj.

I'm going to agree with vlad on this one. If you have all the parts for a mag, you have the mag...

 

Here's a thought to ponder.... if you have two 15rd belts made up of disintegrating links, are they a hi-capacity magazine?

I'm going to agree with vlad on this one.

 

you say that as if it is unusual.. lol

 

Now, if a part is ommited or destroyed you should be to go. So everything but a spring should be OK. Or everything with a spring, but the spring is cut up.

 

the ONLY issue with that is be sure that NONE of your other mags are the same as said high cap body..

example... a body in which spring, follower out of another mag will fit and function...

with NJs goofy anti gun mindset I would not want to roll the dice simply to have a magazine body..

Here's a thought to ponder.... if you have two 15rd belts made up of disintegrating links, are they a hi-capacity magazine?

 

yes..

 

I have said that a million times over.. and I see no other way to view it..

I'm starting a pool to guess when this thread it going to turn into the "is this mag considered a firearm" discussion. I'm thinking by dinner time.

yes..

 

I have said that a million times over.. and I see no other way to view it..

 

Just to be sure we're on the same page I'm talking about TWO separate(yes we all hate this word here) 15 round belts, not currently clipped together to make for a 30 round belt.

Just to be sure we're on the same page I'm talking about TWO separate(yes we all hate this word here) 15 round belts, not currently clipped together to make for a 30 round belt.

 

it is a high capacity magazine in parts.. is it not...

 

16 links that can be attached to fire 16 continuous shots without reloading..

16 round glock magazine that can fire 16 rounds without reloading...

 

I see absolutely no difference..

RE: Disintegrating link belts:

 

I think there may be some, on here, that will argue that point. I won't name names, I will let it up to them if they want to get involved.

it is a high capacity magazine in parts.. is it not...

 

16 links that can be attached to fire 16 continuous shots without reloading..

16 round glock magazine that can fire 16 rounds without reloading...

 

I see absolutely no difference..

 

I have no opinion on the subject, as I don't have anything that could be construed as high capacity by any means, just bringing up items for discussion

at least with belts you can disintegrate the evidence.

part kits..... disassembled Mags... could you hide behind this arguement ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Company

OK, I've been cogitating on this since I last posted - and contrary to what I may or may not have said in the past, I feel that a disintegrating belt is not a "high capacity magazine" as long as it does not exceed the 15 round limit when assembled.

 

What we are talking about here is "constructive possession" and there is nothing in the statutes or the AC that addresses unassembled ammunition feeding devices. About the closest you can come would be 2C39-9,h...

 

h.Large capacity ammunition magazines. Any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, transports, ships, sells or disposes of a large capacity ammunition magazine which is intended to be used for any purpose other than for authorized military or law enforcement purposes by duly authorized military or law enforcement personnel is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

 

...and in this statute it only addresses magazines in their entirety - not parts, components or kits. The magazines must be assembled - or caused to be assembled - before any penalty attaches.

 

As to Maks' point, I'm sure that is the vendor erring on the side of caution. Legally, it would seem, a kit with components to build a high capacity magazine would be fine - only when it is assembled, within the state, would it be illegal.

 

IANAL, but it seems there is nothing in the statutes or AC that says one can be prosecuted for constructive possession.

 

One point that I came across in the link about the Thompson Center SBR case, provided by Stickle was this interesting factoid...

 

This circumstance caused the court to apply the rule of lenity since the NFA carries criminal penalties with it. This meant that ambiguous statutes are interpreted against the government.

 

..would it be safe to assume this applies at the state level?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

a disassembled magazine cannot feed more than 15 rounds continuously into a semi automatic firearm, therfore, is not a large capacity magazine since a large capacity magazine must be capable of continuously feeding more than 15 rounds

a disassembled magazine cannot feed more than 15 rounds continuously into a semi automatic firearm, therfore, is not a large capacity magazine since a large capacity magazine must be capable of continuously feeding more than 15 rounds

 

the problem is the definition of "large capacity magazine" does not stop at function.. it stops as capacity to function..

 

is a box of links capable of feeding more than 15 rounds? sure... the nature of the links makes them able to be attached to lengths far exceeding 15 rounds..

 

do two 15 round belts have the capability to continuously feed more than 15 rounds? sure.. link them together.. does a magazine parts kit possess the capability of feeding more than 15 rounds.. sure..

the problem is that the law appears to simply deem an object that is capable of feeding more than 15 rounds illegal.. capable is a very vague word..

the problem is the definition of "large capacity magazine" does not stop at function.. it stops as capacity to function..

 

is a box of links capable of feeding more than 15 rounds? sure... the nature of the links makes them able to be attached to lengths far exceeding 15 rounds..

 

do two 15 round belts have the capability to continuously feed more than 15 rounds? sure.. link them together.. does a magazine parts kit possess the capability of feeding more than 15 rounds.. sure..

the problem is that the law appears to simply deem an object that is capable of feeding more than 15 rounds illegal.. capable is a very vague word..

 

Vlad: Again, you are arguing "constructive possession". If the two 15 round belts are not linked together, they do not have the ability to continuously feed more than 15 rounds. The statutes only address complete entities, nothing about components.

This part is NJAC, not in the Statutes

 

A large capacity ammunition magazine that has been permanently altered so that it is not capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition will cease to be defined as a "large capacity ammunition magazine." An ammunition magazine, which has been temporarily blocked or modified from holding more than 15 rounds, as by a piece of wood or a pin, is still considered to be a "large capacity ammunition magazine."

 

Only this is in the actual Statute 2C:39-1

 

y."Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.

Vlad: Again, you are arguing "constructive possession". If the two 15 round belts are not linked together, they do not have the ability to continuously feed more than 15 rounds. The statutes only address complete entities, nothing about components.

 

the issue I see is capable.. a disassembled magazine still possesses the capability to be reassembled into a working magazine which can continuously feed ammunition...

the word capable is what bothers me..

the argument that a disassembled magazine is no longer capable is one I would not rest my freedom on.. you (and pretty much anyone who reads my posts) KNOWS that I generally view the laws in our favor.. and hate to be limited by "guessing".. rarely do I "err on the side of caution"... but the term capable is incredibly vague..

 

A "firearm" is defined partially by the working function of the item (which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or).. if you take the firing pin out is a firearm no longer a firearm? can you sell rifles at a yard sale to anyone simply by removing one component that is critical to function? since at the time of sale the item no longer possesses the ability to "fire or eject a solid projectile".. I do not feel that disassembly satisfies voiding function or capability..

 

I am certainly not a lawyer.. and I certainly have no legal grounds to believe this.. other than the simple common definition of "capable".. capable does not necessarily indicate a state of immediate preparedness.. it instead means capable.. "capacity" in itself can be used to indicate potential ability.. which clearly indicates immediate ability is not necessarily the intent..

 

in thinking about it further this also makes me rethink temporary modification of magazines to limit them to 15.. if the mag is temporarily modified to 15 then the magazine technically is still capable in that the magazine has the potential capacity to accept more than 15 rounds.. this intention is echoed where the state spells out in the admin code how magazines much be modified.. granted that is dealer code.. but it does allow one to assume how the state views large capacity magazines..

 

in thinking about it further this also makes me rethink temporary modification of magazines to limit them to 15.. if the mag is temporarily modified to 15 then the magazine technically is still capable in that the magazine has the potential capacity to accept more than 15 rounds.. this intention is echoed where the state spells out in the admin code how magazines much be modified.. granted that is dealer code.. but it does allow one to assume how the state views large capacity magazines..

 

Correct. According to the NJAC, prosecutors/LE are being instructed to charge people for unlawful posession of a high cap mag if they determine that it is is a modified ex-NJ defined "large capacity" mag and they feel those modifications are not "permanent" enough, aka "temporary". They are free to try to make that stick in court, but AFAIK they can't claim that you broke a NJAC guideline with your mags. They could only say you broke the Statute. At the time of the person's arrest, if the mag couldn't feed 15 rounds continuously, then IMO it doesn't classify as a NJ large cap mag.

 

The State will argue that all you need to do is to disassemble the mag, and remove the block of wood. IMO, Oh well, sorry , construction of the magazine was not defined in the Statutes... so technically the box could extend to the floor, provided it doesn't load 15 rounds consecutively into an SA firearm. Sure it could be illegally modified to feed more, but so could a 10rnd mag by sticking a tube and longer spring on the end of it....

I'm not going to argue the point, but your argument falls apart when you say it has "the capability to be reassembled into a working magazine which can continuously feed...." When it is a box of parts it is not capable of feeding anything. It must first be assembled and it is at that point that it becomes illegal - according to the statute. We're not going to convince each other, so I'll leave you with this thought. I know of a case where a man was arrested for possession of a model 1918A4 - that the police claimed was a machine gun. Along with the gun, multiple links were confiscated. He was NOT charged with any magazine related charge.

 

It may very well take a test case to set precedent - but to my knowledge that hasn't happened yet.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

My problem with the side of the argument is that a blocked 15/30rd mag is capable of feeding more then 15rds, of course you would have to remove the limiting device, but it goes with the same argument. Is it the complete magazine... or what you can do with the parts?

All IMO, IANAL...

 

Personally I don't buy the constructive possession of NJ defined "large cap" mags. The statutes have sections that deal with constructive possession of AW's, but nothing on mags. IMO technically a person could posses the unassembled parts of a 30 round mag, and not be in violation of the statutes unless it was assembled, and is capable of feeding more than 15 rounds consecutively into a SA firearm. This would make mag repair kits legal.

 

But then you have to deal with the reality of living in NJ, and what the State is able to do in convincing the jury that you are a gun nut future mass murderer that is trying to exploit loopholes.

the problem again is the word capable.. if you read the definition of the word it does NOT indicate immediate state.. capable implies that it could be made ready...

 

][/size]

 

ca·pa·ble

   [key-puh-buhl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

having power and ability; efficient; competent: a capable instructor.

 

 

Idiom

2.

capable of,

a.

having the ability or capacity for: a man capable of judging art.

b.

open to the influence or effect of; susceptible of: a situation capable of improvement.

c.

predisposed to; inclined to: capable of murder.

 

capable of murder (for instance) does not mean a murder is occurring.. it does not even mean the person IS a murderer.. it simply means the conditions to be a murderer are there..

 

having the ability for..

 

if a magazine is "permanently modified" so that it can NEVER accept more than 15 rounds.. then it is no longer capable of accepting 15 rounds.. if a block of wood is inserted into the bottom.. does that make it so it is incapable of accepting more than 15 rounds? that is where I run into issue.. "capable" does NOT describe a present state.. it instead refers to potential..

 

does taking apart a magazine remove its potential to function? does it make it so the magazine is no longer in a state of "having the ability or capacity for" function? I think construction possession does not need to be referenced since they are literally saying if a magazine has the capability to accept +15 rounds.. it is high cap..

 

the parts of laws that always scare me is choice of wording.. because intentionally or unintentionally it can make all the difference in the world.. the word AND instead of OR can change the entire scope..

The problem with using "capable" that broadly is that it is too vauge. Using your logic that "it could be made to..." A price of sheet metal, a spring, and a follower could be a large cap magazine because it could be assembled into one.

The problem with using "capable" that broadly is that it is too vauge. Using your logic that "it could be made to..." A price of sheet metal, a spring, and a follower could be a large cap magazine because it could be assembled into one.

 

right but there is a difference between fabricating something and putting manufactured parts together... there is no "building" involved in taking a magazine apart.. magazines come apart and go back together without constructing.. or tools.. or fabricating..

 

at the end of the day it is always the same.. if you are comfortable.. go for it.. I just see it differently.. a manufactured magazine does not stop being a magazine just because you take it apart.. they are manufactured to be taken apart.. again far different than stretching it to encompass raw materials.. or something that has nothing to do with a gun at all..

 

and lets remember.. I did not choose the word capable.. nor did I alter its meaning..

I wish we had some case law on someone being charged with temporarily blocked NJ defined high cap mags... That's the only thing that would mean anything one way or another.

I wish we had some case law on someone being charged with temporarily blocked NJ defined high cap mags... That's the only thing that would mean anything one way or another.

 

I wish we had a way to get a court to rule on something without someone having to be the test case...